redmine_wiki

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the basic operations (list, get, update, delete) but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation-capable tool, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified; more details could be added without losing conciseness. It is minimally adequate but not optimally structured for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, error codes, or the relationship between actions and parameters. Significant gaps remain for effective agent invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 44%, meaning the schema already documents some parameters, but the description adds no additional meaning. It does not explain the role of parameters like project_id, wiki_page, or how actions relate to them. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb 'Manage' and the resource 'project wiki pages', enumerating specific actions: list, get, update, delete. This clearly indicates the tool's scope but does not differentiate from sibling tools like redmine_issues or redmine_documents, which manage different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely lists actions without specifying context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear direction for selection among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.